In Depth

St. Joseph Probate Court did not err when it allowed videotaped evidence of a child molesting victim to be presented at the
fact-finding hearing of a minor who subsequently was placed at the Indiana Boys School.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in A.R.M. v. State of Indiana, No. 71A05-1111-JV-613. “The juvenile court did not err when
it determined that the child victim’s videotaped statement to a forensic interviewer was reliable and that, on the facts
presented, the child victim had testified at the fact-finding hearing, which was equivalent to the trial required by the (Protected
Persons Statute),” Judge Edward Najam wrote for the panel.

The appeal involves A.R.M., one of four children of a mother who lived with two friends in South Bend. A.R.M. was a 13-year-old
boy accused of crimes against an 8-year-old boy that would have been felony child molestation and battery if committed by
adults, according to court records. At trial, A.R.M. was adjudicated a delinquent and committed to the Indiana Department
of Correction for placement at the Indiana Boys School.

At issue in the appeal was the reliability of the videotaped interview with the victim, S.M., conducted several days after
the incident. The interview took place at the office of St. Joseph Child Abuse Services Investigation and Education center.

A.R.M. contended the videotape didn’t meet the standard under the PPS to be reliable, and that the state didn’t
meet the requirement of having S.M. testify or showing, through medical testimony or other evidence, that S.M. was unavailable
to testify at the fact-finding hearing. The appeal also suggested the victim had been coached by his mother.

The appeals court ruled otherwise, saying no evidence of coaching existed, and that the court satisfied admission requirements
to assure the videotaped evidence was reliable.

“We cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it determined that the time, content, and circumstances
of the videotape provide sufficient indications of reliability,” Najam wrote.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.